Mayaram S/O Sahajram Sadhwani v. Mr. Ajay Govindrao Kurwade, Chief Officer, Municipal Council Karanja (Lad) And Others

2024:BHC-NAG:4994-DB 1 cao1243.2024..odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO. 1243/2024 IN CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO. 139 OF 2021 IN IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 157 OF 2019 (Mayaram s/o Sahajram Sadhwani Vs. Mr. Ajay Govindrao Kurwade, Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Karanja (lad) and others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Applicant/petitioner in person, Mr. P.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4, Mr. A.V. Palshikar, AGP for respondent No. 3/State. CORAM : G.A. SANAP & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

DATED : 20-02-2025 The applicant/petitioner in person moved this application for speaking to minutes.

2.

Heard the applicant/petitioner in person, the learned AGP Mr. A.V. Palshikar, for respondent No.3 and Mr. P.P. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4, perused the application, order dated 27.01.2023 and record. 3.

It seems that in a communication/order dated 27.01.2023, in CA No. 139 of 2021 in Contempt Petition No. 157/2019 in Writ Petition No. 3037/1998 in the 13th line of the 2nd paragraph, the word "Chief Officer" has appeared instead of "Regional Director Municipal Administration and Divisional Commissioner", and therefore, the applicant urged to correct the said typographical mistake.

2 cao1243.2024..odt 4.

In response, the learned AGP for respondent No. 3 and the learned Counsel for respondent Nos 1, 2, and 4 have neither disputed the said fact nor objected to its correction. 5.

On perusal of the order dated 27.01.2023 and a communication/order dated 21.01.2019, we found substance in the contention of the applicant in that regard. 6.

Having considered the same, we are of the opinion that the said typographical error is required to be corrected. As such, the application is allowed as prayed. Accordingly, the typographical error be corrected and a corrected copy of the order be uploaded.

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (G.A. SANAP, J.) Belkhede